- Average user rating:
- My rating: 0 stars
Full user review
-
17 out of 22 people found this review helpful
4.5 stars
"Not exactly a fair comparrison, is it?"
Pros: Small footprint; Easy to use.
Cons: Ease of use is apparently not quantifiable.
Summary: I look to c|net for thorough, objective reviews that shed light on the pros and cons of today's technology. The review seen here is a little off in that the reviewer has compared the performance of the Mini to that of more powerful machines. Case in point: the Mini used in tests had a 2.0GHz Intel Core 2 Duo chip; the Velocity Micro machine used to compare the performance of the Mini had an Intel Core 2 Duo 6320 overclocked to 3.0GHz. Unless my math is off, that's 50% more processor power! Secondly, the Mini was equipped with 1GB 667MHz DDR2 SDRAM whereas the same machine mentioned above was equipped with 2GB 800MHz DDR2 SDRAM. So, not only is there 100% more RAM, the front-side bus is just under 20% faster. Thirdly, the hard drive on the Velocity Micro machine was spinning at 7,200 rpm?s whereas the Mini?s hard drive merely putters along at 5,400 rpm?s. Now, I realize that you?d probably have to compare the performance of the Mini with that of a laptop in order to compare component performance fairly, but maybe that?s the point! (The Mini is made with laptop components!! When you compare the Mini with a comparable laptop, the benefits of the Mini suddenly come to the surface: you can change out monitor and you can change out the keyboard.) And we, the unwashed masses, are expected to accept test results that show, not surprisingly, that the Mini doesn?t compare favorably to more powerful machines. The argument the reviewer appears to want us to focus on is cost. Well, for an additional $150 the reviewer could have at least added an additional 1GB of RAM that could have at least evened out the QUANTITY of RAM, setting aside the differences in the speed of the front-side buses. This would have brought the cost difference to $50 ? the Mini still being the cheaper of the two. What would the test results have looked like if that one minor upgrade had been made to the Mini? One wonders. I?m giving c|net the benefit of the doubt that the setup for this review was not made with malicious intent.
- 5 replies to this review
-
um unless im mistaken his math wuz rite...unlike my spelin
2ghz to 3ghz would be 50%...like u both agreed on...idk why ur addin an subtractin an stuff but w/e mabye my processers fast...but i dont git it, yall agree?
hmm...well jus to be safe..in case a virus was on ur windows machine and fogged
1gig to 2 gig yea he said 100%
unless of course he edited it
idk mabye im wrong i dont even know wut this forum is about...i jus dont like the win/mac battle, together they kick ass
o well...linux is the bomb anyway
im stoned so i wouldnt know -
tipoo, I believe you are the one that needs to questions his/her own math. When you extract 50% from the 2 you get 1. When you add that 1 to 2 you get 3. 1+ 2 = 3.
Maybe you should take download a calculator widget before you write your next reply. -
how is going from 2GHZ to 3GHZ (on the same type of chip) a 50% increase? you were right, your math is wrong.
-
They test machines in the default config which is what most people will buy. You can't make every machine equal by upgrading because that's impractical.
The Mac mini may use laptop parts, but it's a desktop and should be treated as one. Demonstrating that you can get better parts for the price doesn't help any argument.
The iMac also uses laptop parts, but it's a desktop, and still defeats its competitors. -
The Velocity is on there to show that for $200 more you can get a significantly more powerful computer than the Mac Mini. I'd think anyone shopping for a $799 system might be interested to know what you can get if you spend a little bit more.
